1
TEACHING &
LEARNING ENGLISH
(Theories and Practices)
MUHAMMAD SUKRIANTO
LOVI TRIONO
ENGLISH EDUCATION
POST GRADUATE PROGRAM
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
2
Content
Content i
A Pragmatic Analysis of the Conversational Implicatures 1
Speaking Activities Implemented by Teachers in Classroom 8
Teaching English to Children 15
Pembelajaran dengan Menggunakan Media Komputer 20
Applying Contextual Instruction to involve Students with The Natural
Way of Learning English 27
Students Age which EFL is Introduced in School and
Educational Outcome 30
Which Students Join Whom? 34
You are Intellectuall? Write! 38
A Critical Review of “Pokoknya Sunda” 49
English Sentences 58
“Radio” The Innovation of Technology in Education 65
Ten Good Game for Recycling Vocabulary 77
The Effect of Explicit Metapragmatic Instruction on Speech Act
Awareness of Advanced EFL Students 82
Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies 85
Encouraging Questioning In English Reading Comprehension
For The Second Year Students Of Man Model Manado 90

he or she first has to assume that the speaker is being cooperative and intend to
communicate something. However, in many occasion in conversation, speaker intend to
communicate more than is said. It is an additional meaning or that something more than
what the words means called an implicature (Yule, 1996).
Conversational implicatures have become one of the principal subjects of
pragmatics. According to Levinson (1983:97), the notion of conversational implicature
is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics. An implicature is something
meant, implied, or suggested distinct from what is said. Implicatures can be part of
sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional or
unconventional. Grice, who coined the term “implicature,” and classified the
phenomenon, developed an influential theory to explain and predict conversational
implicatures, and describe how they are understood. The “Cooperative Principle” and
associated “Maxims” play a central role. Many authors have focused on principles of
4
politeness and communicative efficiency. Questions have been raised as to how well
these principle-based theories account for the intentionality of speaker implicature and
conventionality of sentence implicature.
This study does not attempt to review either all the relevant theory or all of
what is known about implicature in the world’s languages. Rather, an attempt is made to
pinpoint some of the most tantalizing theoretical and descriptive problems, to sketch the
way in attempts to analyze pragmatically the conversational implicatures of
a
conversational transcript
in a Today’s Dialogue program on Metro TV “Thoughts on The
Reshuffle,” based
on Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its maxims
Conversation transcript is a written text as the realizations of utterance by the
participant in a conversation. A transcript has detail and complete utterances. However,
the meaning of utterance in written text can also be known from its situation context
within the sequence of the actions.

distinction between quietly violating a maxim and openly flouting a maxim. Violations
are quiet in the sense that it is not obvious at the time of the utterance that the speaker
has deliberately lied, supplied insufficient information, or been ambiguous, irrelevant or
hard to understand. In Grice’s analysis, these violations might hamper communication
but they do not lead to implicatures. What leads to implicatures is a situation where the
speaker flouts a maxim. That is, it is obvious to the hearer at the time of the utterance
that the speaker has deliberately and quite openly failed to observe one or more maxims.
According to Grice, the implicature is made possible by the fact that we normally
assume that speakers do not really abandon the
cooperative principle although in
conversations they sometimes face a clash between maxims.
Grice viewed these rules not as arbitrary conventions, but as instances of more
general rules governing rational, cooperative behavior. For example, if a woman is
helping a man build a house, she will hand him a hammer rather than a tennis racket
(relevance), more than one nail when several are needed (quantity), straight nails rather
than bent ones (quality), and she will do all this quickly and efficiently (manner).
Generalizing from the explanation above, Grice provided a theoretical account
of what it is to conversationally implicate something that has been widely adopted,
sometimes with subtle variations.
3. Methodology
The methodology employed in this study is descriptive qualitative. A
qualitative study is an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem,
based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed
views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting. (Cresswell,1994). The objective
6
of this study is to analyze pragmatically the conversational implicatures of a
conversational transcript based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its maxims. The
data were taken from conversation transcript of Today’s Dialogue program on Metro TV
“Thoughts on The Reshuffle,” Today’s Dialogue program on Metro TV were selected
since it is a formal dialogue and interesting to analyze. The process of data analysis

17 (80, 95%)
5. Maxim of Manner 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16,
10 (47, 61%)
7
Based on the table above, in the conversation the four maxims are flouted. The
maxims of relevance are frequently flouted (80, 95%) the highest score. 17 out of 20
dialogues flouted this maxim. The second frequently flouted are the maxim of quantity
(76, 19%), and then followed by maxim of manner (47, 61%) and maxim of quality (6,
52%). These maxims are considered to be flouted based on the category and the
characteristic given by Grace (1967).
In accordance with the finding above, we chose some segments of the
conversation to analyze. Most of dialogues flouted the maxim of relevance and maxim
of quantity. According to Thomas (1995) the maxim of relation is exploited by making a
response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand. Let see
the example in dialogue 4 (see the appendix):
Meutia: Pak Darwin, do you also think there should be a reshuffle?
Darwin: Whether we are talking about a government or a company, it is natural that
personalities are judged in line with the targets that have been reached. If we
are objective, we can see that many targets have been reached by ministers.
The problem is really one of perception. If you don’t want to say any
minister’s names, then at least give the portfolios they are responsible for.
In the above example, the maxim of relation (Be relevant) is exploited by
making a response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the question in
hand (e.g., by abruptly changing the subject, or by overtly failing to address the other
person’s goal on asking a question). Examples of flouting the maxim of Relevance by
changing the subject or by failing to address the topic directly are encountered very
frequently. In this example, Darwin makes a response which is truthful, clear, etc.,
however it is not relevant with Mutiah’s question. What it does not do is to address
Mutiah’s goal in asking the question: she wants to know whether